George Osborne has written in the Guardian saying he is committed to ending tax abuse by multinational companies. I welcome that; I just wish I was convinced by it, but I am not, as yet.

I’ll ignore the politics in the piece; they diminish it and that is unfortunate. Much of what he says implies that the problem in the UK has largely been solved, by the general anti-abuse rule for example.

I can assure him that as I am pretty intimately acquainted with that right now his confidence is wholly misplaced.

The result is that he focuses on developing countries. Now I have no problem with that; they have been the focus of much of what I have done for a decade.

The trouble is he appears to ignore the demands of most of us who have been doing so.

There is a modest commitment to country by country reporting in the extractive industries. But the EU is already delivering that right now so that’s not new.

And there is a commitment to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, but that’s existed for a decade now.

And there is a commitment to technical assistance to developing countries – but that’s been happening for several years now.

In fact there is not a single new idea or proposal in this article. And that is worrying. How on earth can multinational company tax abuse anywhere be eliminated without serious change?

Where is the indication of how transfer pricing is to be transformed or replaced?

How will there be real transparency for Africa without full country by country reporting and not just for the extractive industries?

Why is there no commitment on tax havens and yet that is where developing country money flows?

And where is the demand for beneficial ownership and accounts for all companies and trusts to be put on public record worldwide so that we can truly know what is happening in these entities, tax it and make economic decisions using it?

George Osborne has made a welcome move. But it needs substance and as yet it has not got it.

So the question is will he now consult with those who know something about this issue? I hope so.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

13 Responses to “Osborne commits to ending tax avoidance, but I need convincing that he means it”

Newsbot9

Except, of course, there is – unless you crash the economy, your aim. And no, you’re deliberately using a response to lie, deliberately trying to have the poor pay your bills again, socialist.

Keep using your fraudulent figures, which assume no fees, unrealistic returns, that JSA etc. is cancelled…you’re trying to claim everyone else is your type of fraudster, and to hammer the poor and their wages again. And yes, you need to go to jail for your fraud, and have you assets confiscated. Your 4.3 trillion fraud, which you boast about, will do nicely.

LB

Again, you can’t tell the difference between a deliberate aim, such as running

a Pension’s ponzi, and a statement about the inevitable result.

The Ponzi will cause the crash, resulting in the poor and pensioners being destitute.

So the level of fees charged by the state results in a loss of 430,000 pounds.

JSA at 6 months a year, over 40 years, comes to 74,000, assuming 1 unemployed person per worker. So how many workers per JSA claimant?

The fraud is the state. As I keep pointing out to you, its not me running the NI system, its Labour wonks like you, and Tory wonks, and Lib Dem idiots taking people’s money and giving it away, instead of investing it.

Newsbot9

Newsbot9

I can tell that the “inevitable” result is your fraud, no more and no less. That you are a Ponzi scammer means you are a ponzi scammer, no more and no less. You are trying to turn the state pension into a ponzi, by not paying it.

You keep using fraudulent figures, based on simple-minded assumptions. And you keep on claiming that you are the state and your fraud is the states. You can’t get your mind around the concept of there being people other than your 1% and Labourites either.

Newsbot9

Keep on assigning zero-cost schemes, and basing them on a multiple which is both unrealistic and at a time when you’re engaging in a sustained campaign against jobs. And keep saying that there’s a “loss” based on services given, fraudster.